Retaining the Productive Employee: the Role of Personality

The Academy of Management Annals, 2014 Vol. 8, No. 1, 347–395, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.890368

Retaining the Productive Employee: The Role of Personality

NING LI* Tippie College of Business, The University of Iowa

MURRAY R. BARRICK Mays Business School, Texas A&M University

RYAN D. ZIMMERMAN Pamplin College of Business, Virginia Tech University

DAN S. CHIABURU Mays Business School, Texas A&M University

Abstract Prior meta-analyses and quantitative reviews have examined the construct- related true-score correlations by personality in predicting important organizational outcomes or have focused on relatively speciﬁc, practical problems generally associated with using personality tests in selection. However, there lacks a theoretical integration of major theories developed in the literature. In this review, we propose an integrative research paradigm for personality research by identifying key mediating and moderating mechanisms explaining why, how and when personality traits predict employee work effectiveness. Based on the compatibility principle, we develop a theoretical model to

∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

# 2014 Academy of Management

347 348 † The Academy of Management Annals reconceptualize the effect of the five-factor model (FFM) on broadly defined work effectiveness outcomes. We contend researchers have not exploited the breadth of the FFM bandwidth and thus have underestimated the predictive power of personality. In support of our new propositions, we systematically review the almost overwhelming literature by focusing on retaining productive employees, in order to contribute theoretically by identifying a few key generalizable findings and to improve managerial efficiency by uncovering possible “best practices”.

Personality is a core construct. To understand why people behave the way they do in organizations, one must know something about the individual’s personality. While personality is not the only cause of behavior, it constantly sways our behavior at work. More importantly, personality has been shown to influence two sets of behaviors critical to any organization: employee performance and employee withdrawal from the organization. Not surprisingly, there have been hundreds, if not thousands, of primary studies examining the role of personality in predicting these behaviors at work. Over the past two decades, this accumulated evidence has been subjected to a number of meta-analyses to determine the generalizability of these effects. Previous reviews and quantitative meta-analyses have focused on construct-related true-score correlations or relatively specific, practical problems generally associated with using personality tests in selection (Barrick, Mount, & Judge, 2001; Oswald & Hough, 2011) but typically lack theoretical integration with prominent theories developed in the literature. In addition to using personality to predict work performance from a selection perspective, scholars studying different management phenomena (e.g. goal orientation, Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007) often rely on personality traits to understand their etiologies. Although it is hard to think of many management theories in which personality is not relevant and has not at some point been invoked, this leaves personality research (broadly construed) scattered across the theoretical landscape. In this review, we shift the focus to personality’s relationship with behavior, specifically behavior linked to work effectiveness—construed broadly as performance at work (task, contextual, and proactive) and withdrawal or separ- ation from that work (absenteeism, turnover, and counterproductive behaviors). By doing so, we attempt to systematically review the almost overwhelming literature by focusing on retaining productive employees, in order to enhance our theoretical understanding by identifying a few key generalizable findings and to improve managerial efficiency by uncovering possible “best practices”. Our intent is to stimulate research on personality as a focal topic and to simultaneously inform the broader community of management researchers who draw on personality to enhance their own theories about performance and withdrawal. Retaining the Productive Employee † 349

We begin with a short primer on the fundamental role of personality at work. Next, we summarize past work to comprehensively illustrate various models and theories being tested to illustrate the complexities of research on personality recognizing relevant moderators and mediators and to propose ways in which future researchers might extend their own models and theories by accounting for differences in personality across employees. Third, we highlight the role of the interrelationships among components of personality, performance, and withdrawal that collectively reveals the importance of aggregation. Given the need to empirically substantiate our propositions, we conduct a quantitative review to demonstrate the importance of applying the compatibility principle to understand the relationships between personality– work effectiveness. We also suggest future directions for personality research along the way. There is also value in clarifying what this review will not do. Our intent here is not to review personality from a selection utility standpoint. A large number of recent quantitative reviews have presented evidence of the magnitude of validity coefficients, the existence of sub-group differences, and whether these relationships are biased by faking or measurement (Barrick et al., 2001; Cortina, Goldstein, Payne, Davison, & Gilliland, 2000; Foldes, Duehr, & Ones, 2008; Komar, Brown, Komar, & Robie, 2008; Oswald & Hough, 2011; Shaffer & Postlethwaite, 2012). From another direction, nearly 50 years ago, Mischel (1968) argued that personality had limited predictive validity because the correlation with behavior rarely exceeded a .30 value. This concern was recently reiterated by a panel of scholars who also concluded that personality lacks predictive efficacy (Morgeson et al., 2007). In this review, we summarize empirical evidence that shows personality traits are important and based on the massive weight of accumulated evidence (Barrick et al., 2001), have a functional relationship with how effectively employees perform their jobs and whether they remain engaged with work. However, we do not re-visit the person–situation debate. Therefore, we will avoid arguing whether personality is more powerful than situational predictors or organizational interventions. Instead, our purpose is to clarify ways personality traits are likely to be theoretically relevant to nearly every topic in organizational behavior (OB) as either a distal antecedent or by jointly influencing behavior along with relevant situational factors.

A Primer on Personality’s Effects on Behavior The study of human behavior, especially how effectively we perform at work and whether we remain in a job, is fundamental to OB. One important determinant of such behavior is our personality (Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts, Kuncel, Shiner, Caspi, & Goldberg, 2007). Over the past 25 years, researchers have conducted numerous studies proposing that personality 350 † The Academy of Management Annals traits, which reflect an individual’s enduring patterns of cognition, motivation, and behavior exhibited across contexts (Goldberg, 1993), should have a functional relationship with how effectively employees perform their jobs, and whether they remain engaged with work (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Five key personality traits arising from the Big Five model are frequently examined, although some researchers believe better prediction can be achieved by focusing on lower level traits (Hough, 1998; Marinova, Moon, & Kamdar, 2013; Oswald & Hough, 2011), through personality composites (Ones, Dilchert, Vis- wesvaran, & Judge, 2007), or occasionally, higher-order latent constructs (Digman, 1997). Following the preponderance of evidence (Ashton, Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009; McCrae et al., 2008), we focus on the five-factor constructs, including conscientiousness (dependability, achievement, and persistence), emotional stability (calm, steady, and self-confident), extraversion (ambitious, sociable, and narcissistic), agreeableness (cooperative, altruistic, and trustworthy), and openness to experience (creative, thoughtful, and novelty-seeking) rather than on either facets or on higher-order factors. Other trait researchers have recently invoked include core self-evaluation (emotional stability, generalized self-efficacy, self-esteem, and locus of control; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005), promotion or prevention regulatory focus (nurturance, approach versus security, and avoidance; Wallace & Chen, 2006), or goal orientation (mastery, learning versus performance, and avoid; Payne et al., 2007). A back to the future focus on psychological needs or higher-order implicit goals has also occurred, including such goals as striving for accomplishment, status, communion, and autonomy (Barrick, Mount, & Li, 2013; Deci & Ryan, 2000; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). These approaches typically highlight universal goals or needs that everyone strives to attain, at least to some extent, to lead fulfilling, engaging lives. By focusing on the five-factor model (FFM) of personality we provide a comprehensive framework for theoretical development while simultaneously covering all of these other traits. In the past 25 years, there has been a number of meta-analyses that collectively provide ample evidence that these specific personality traits are important factors in the determination of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick et al., 2001; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp, & McCloy, 1990; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Salgado, 1997). In addition to job performance, personality traits have been linked with other important work behaviors, including contextual performance or organizational citizenship behavior (OCB, Chiaburu, Oh, Berry, Li, & Gardner, 2011), counterproductive work behavior (CWB, Berry, Carpenter, & Barratt, 2012; Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007), and turnover (Zimmerman, 2008). Although the magnitude of the relationships for individual traits rarely exceeds .30 (Mischel, 1968; Nisbett, 1980), the size of these effects are comparable to those found when specific job characteristics are enriched (Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Retaining the Productive Employee † 351

Morgeson, 2007) or job satisfaction itself when related to job performance (Judge, Heller, & Mount, 2002). Consequently, while these relations are modest, they are significant predictors of human behavior. Even more to the point, given that human behavior has multiple determinants, it makes sense for differences in personality to provide only one cause or explanation for our behavior. Recent findings have also revealed some unique properties that researchers must account for to fully understand the nature of the relationship between personality and these two key outcomes (i.e. performance and withdrawal). First, these predictions are seen to be important because personality itself is relatively stable over long periods of time (Conley, 1985; Roberts & Del Vecchio, 2000; Roberts & Robins, 2000) in part because of genetic predispositions (Eley, Lich- tenstein, & Moffitt, 2003; Ferguson, 2010; Knafo & Plomin, 2006; Nettle, 2006). This means the dispositional explanations for behavior uncovered in this review will be long-standing and reveal that organizations may gain substantial utility from productivity gains every single day for years and years. Therefore, it is vital to understand how personality predicts global evaluations of employees’ contributions to organizational objectives rather than employees’ moment- to-moment behavior changes (Campbell, 1990). Second, research has recently illustrated that there are trait complexes (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997; Barrick, Mount, & Gupta, 2003; Kotov, Gamez, Schmidt, & Watson, 2010) that suggests there may be synergistic gains from aggregation as traits can covary in systematic ways to influence these two key outcomes. The third key issue that has recently been revealed is that different assessment approaches, including the use of observer-ratings of personality traits, can be used to predict performance (Connelly & Ones, 2010; Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Zimmerman, Triana, & Barrick, 2010) and have nearly twice the magnitude of prediction as do self-ratings. Thus, it may very well be that different measurement approaches may reveal more substantial effects for personality than previously found using self-report questionnaires (Funder, 2009). For all of these reasons, personality is now treated as an important predictor of key behavioral outcomes. At the same time, we now have a more realistic appreciation of the challenges and opportunities when using personality as an important predictor in work settings. Although previous quantitative reviews and meta-analyses have established personality as a critical determinant of employee work behavior, they tend to overlook theories that explain how, why, and when personality predicts human behavior. In other words, there lacks a systematic integration of various models and theories developed in the literature. To remedy this limitation, in the following section, we review major theories and attempt to gain a better understanding of the pathways and boundary conditions that impact the effect of personality. 352 † The Academy of Management Annals

Theories of Personality as a Predictor of Work Performance and Withdrawal Over the past 25 years, there has been a veritable explosion of theories of personality, both in the form of primary studies and comprehensive meta-analytic reviews, to reveal the mediating and moderating mechanisms through which personality traits are linked to work effectiveness. We conduct an overview of this research to enhance our understanding of what is “known” and what “gaps” can be revealed in the literature. We direct considerable attention toward underlying mediating mechanisms, including processes linked to motivational mediators and key work-related attitudes, in order to further theoretical formulations of how personality affects these fundamental outcomes. Furthermore, we examine major theories specifying the boundary conditions of the effects of personality on employee behavior (e.g. situational strength, Meyer, Dalal, & Hermida, 2010; trait activation theory, Tett & Burnett, 2003; the cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS), Mischel & Shoda, 1995;a job characteristic model, Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Specifically, these theories rely on a common premise arguing that human behavior is a product of the interaction of personality and situation. However, the theories differ in several important ways in terms of the role of personality, the role of the situation, and the specificity of the predictions. Our review also covers recent research unifying both mediating and moderating mechanisms of personality (e.g. the theory of purposeful work behavior, TPWB; Barrick et al., 2013). For all of these reasons, an overview that summarizes our current knowledge about personality at work is necessary, in order to influence the visionary application of personality in future research in management and

Figure 1 Theoretical Frameworks for the Effects of Personality Traits. Retaining the Productive Employee † 353

OB. An integrative framework, including major theories and models of personality, is presented in Figure 1 and explained in detail in the next section.

Mediating Mechanisms Personality traits are habitual ways of thinking and doing across situations. Conceptually, this highlights three key necessities of these traits, that they: (1) are dispositional, consistent, long-lasting constructs in part arising from genetic determinants; (2) represent internal agency, depicting the dynamic organization within the self that determine characteristic, habitual thoughts, feelings, and actions; and (3) have personal distinctiveness such that even “uni- versalistic variables” (Deci & Ryan, 2000) can vary across people in degree of strength or applicability to understand behavior. Through these traits, we can “provide the best estimate of what a person is most likely to do” (Fiske & Butler, 1963, p. 258) in any given situation. As we will summarize below, personality affects behavior primarily through motivational processes and other mechanisms that indirectly influence one’s motivation. Specifically, among the key mediator variables that are expected to explain the process through which personality influences job performance are more proximal motivational indicators, such as goal setting, self-efficacy, and expectancies (Chen, Casper, & Cortina, 2001; Judge & Ilies, 2002) as well as key work-related attitudes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and burnout (Bruk-Lee, Khoury, Nixon, Goh, & Spector, 2009; Judge et al., 2002; Ng, Eby, Sorensen, & Feldman, 2005; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010; Zimmerman, 2008). Before discussing the potential mechanisms through which personality influences behavior, it is important to establish the causal link between the two. One particularly causal form of evidence assesses personality months or years prior to predicting behavior. Longitudinal analyses indicate that personality, assessed in childhood, predicts career success over 50 years later (Judge, Higgins, Thoresen, & Barrick, 1999). As demonstrated by Judge et al. (1999), early assessment of personality (at ages 16, 17, and 18) predicted success in one’s career (measured by salary, career status, and rate of promotion) up to age 60, with a multiple correlation of .51 for personality (with observed correlations of .41 for conscientiousness, .34 for emotional stability, .26 for openness to experience, and .18 for extraversion). Clearly, the existence of significant effects for personality on employee effectiveness spanning over 40 or even 50 years is convincing evidence that personality affects behavior across situations.

Motivational processes. Theoretically, differences in these personality traits across employees predict work effectiveness primarily through their long-lasting dispositional influences on work motivation. The direction, inten- sity, and persistence of motivated behavior ultimately must arise from within 354 † The Academy of Management Annals the individual (Kanfer, Chen, & Pritchard, 2008; Mitchell & Daniels, 2003) and not surprisingly, personality has a significant effect on whether the person is motivated at work. In fact, in many respects, personality can be conceptualized as the “motor” driving one’s actions to try to fulfill the dynamic desires and preferences arising from within the person (Barrick et al., 2013). It is this mechanism that leads personality to be theoretically relevant to nearly every topic in OB. Specifically, to enhance understanding of how personality influences typical behavior at work, it is important to realize that motivational processes will be the key mediator underlying this relationship. Several broad approaches have dominated attention in the relevant literature and will serve as the organizing framework around which these key motivational processes are described. The first uses goals as purposeful representations of desired internal states to explain the self-regulatory processes guiding one’s actions. Although there are many aspects to the self-regulatory actions of the individual, personality traits are expected to influence the valence of a goal as a well as the strength of the response to discrepancies between one’s actual and desired states (Barrick, Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005) through both conscious and subconscious regulatory processes. For example, extra- verted employees will exert more effort to achieve a goal if doing so leads to a reward (Stewart, 1996). The second takes a resource-based view to explain motivational choices (Halbesleben & Bowler, 2007; Smillie, Yeo, Furnham, & Jackson, 2006). From this perspective, action is contingent on activation of one’s “resources” or the amount of energy the individual has available to expend or continue to expend. Personality is thought to be one source of additional resources. The third way personality affects work effectiveness is through task-focused motivational processes. Conscientiousness has been established as a valid predictor of job performance across jobs (Barrick & Mount, 1991) and the mechanism by which this trait affects effectiveness has been found to be through its focus on task-related behavior (Judge & Ilies, 2002). In fact, conscientiousness has been referred to as work-related motivation (Mount & Barrick, 1995). Essentially, prior studies reveal that the major mechanism by which distal personality traits influence employee effectiveness is through its continuous sway over proximal motivational measures, including task self-efficacy, performance expectancies, and goal-directed performance (Judge & Ilies, 2002). Thus, personality affects behavior through the task-specific motivational processes that regulate individuals’ action plans or task activities leading to goal persistence and accomplishment. Such processes are too numerous and varied to enumerate, but include how efficacious or confident people are that working hard will lead to higher performance, the benefits individuals anticipate if they achieve the performance goal, and their commitment to and willingness to persist toward goals linked to performance (Judge & Ilies, Retaining the Productive Employee † 355

2002; Locke, 1991). More importantly, these effects on task-specific motivational processes are continuous, as personality tends to impact these processes across numerous and varied situations, year-after-year, at work (Judge et al., 1999; Ozer & Benet-Martinez, 2006; Roberts et al., 2007). Empirically, across 65 studies, Judge and Ilies (2002) meta-analyzed the relationships between the FFM personality traits and three key motivational outcomes (i.e. goal setting, expectancy, and self-efficacy) and found that emotional stability and conscientiousness had the strongest and most consistent effects on motivation. Overall, the Big Five constructs had an average multiple correlation of .49 with the motivational variables. Given the predominant role of these three motivational criteria in driving employee work behavior, they likely serve as key mediating mechanisms in the relationship between the FFM and employee work effectiveness. Similarly, research evidence also suggests that individuals differ in likeli- hood to withdraw from work (Ghiselli, 1974; Judge & Watanabe, 1995). Most theoretical withdrawal models include individual differences as an important predictor (Hom & Griffeth, 1995; March & Simon, 1958; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979; Steers & Mowday, 1981; Zimmerman, 2008), and posit motivation and satisfaction-based intervening mechanisms (Judge & Larsen, 2001; Swider & Zimmerman, 2010; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, & de Chermont, 2003; Zimmerman, 2008). In a recent process model, Zimmerman, Boswell, Shipp, Dunford, and Boudreau (2012) found that the relationship between personality and withdrawal behavior was also partially mediated through work perceptions, self-efficacy to attract new job offers, ambition, and financial need. These findings reveal that personality affects both performance and withdrawal primarily through job attitudes and motivated work behavior.

Affect and satisfaction. To fully understand how personality inﬂuences work effectiveness, it is also instrumental to recognize the ways through which the motivational effect attributed to various personality traits is mani- fested at work. One important motivational mechanism is affect, but in the case of personality this is limited to mood rather than emotion. Mood is long lasting, less intense, and more diffusely directed at a target than emotion (Lord & Kanfer, 2002). Miner and Glomb (2010) recently illustrated that mood precedes behavior, although it is not possible to rule out reciprocal causation. Emotional stability and extraversion, as indicators of negative and positive affectivity (Thoresen et al., 2003), are expected to have pervasive effects on the dispositional way the person responds to stimuli broadly arising from the job and social setting. Consequently, the more affect is expected to act as an antecedent or consequence to motivation or behavior, or to be crucial to the self-regulatory process (Carver & Scheier, 1990, 1998; 356 † The Academy of Management Annals

Ilies & Judge, 2005), the more important the affect-driven personality traits will be to the relationships being examined. Relatedly, researchers have also linked the Big Five traits with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002), which serves as a valid predictor of various employee work behaviors (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006). Overall job satisfaction reflects employees’ affective evaluation of their jobs, and is partially determined by individuals’ dispositional traits (Judge et al., 2002; Levin & Stokes, 1989; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999). Specifically, among the Big Five traits, extraversion and emotional stability had consistent effects on job satisfaction across studies. Overall, the Five-Factor traits as a set had a multiple correlation of .41 with job satisfaction (Judge et al., 2002), indicating the importance of the FFM in determining one’s job attitudes. In an attempt to test the mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between personality and work behavior, Ilies, Fulmer, Spitzmuller, and Johnson (2009) found that conscientiousness and agreeableness had significant indirect effects on employee citizenship behavior via job satisfaction.

Social relationships. The importance of social relationships to motivation and behavior has recently experienced a resurgence of research interest (Chia- buru & Harrison, 2008; Humphrey et al., 2007). Research reveals that personality traits like extraversion and agreeableness are key determinants of work effectiveness when interpersonal relationships matter (Barbuto & Moss, 2006; Bell, 2007; Bono & Judge, 2004; Boyatzis, Good, & Massa, 2012). Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998), for example, found that agreeableness was the most important personality predictor of team success. Similarly, Judge, Bono, Ilies, and Gerhardt (2002) found extraversion to be linked to leader behavior, particularly transformational leadership. The accumulated evidence clearly establishes a substantial foundation for sustaining the position that personality matters when predicting work effectiveness particularly when that work is dependent on successful interpersonal relationships. These findings illustrate that to understand the processes through which specific personality traits are linked to work effectiveness, researchers can focus on motivation, affect, and social relationships processes. Recognizing these different mechanisms will enable researchers to more accurately identify which traits are relevant and deserve further attention. Although, these perspectives contribute to our understanding of how personality affects behavior, they insufficiently provide an integrative framework specifying the fine-grained predictions of different personality traits and unique mechanisms. Therefore, we review two important theories in personality research to gain a deeper understanding of the mediating mechanisms of personality. Retaining the Productive Employee † 357

Theories of Personality and Mediation Socioanalytic theory. A socioanalytic perspective posits that individuals strive to pursue two fundamental goals: getting along with others and getting ahead to achieve status (Hogan, 1983). The theory is developed based on an assumption that individuals are nested within groups, which are structured in terms of status hierarchies (Hogan & Holland, 2003). Essentially, socioanalytic theory represents a motivational perspective specifying two fundamental human motives. However, the theory also emphasizes that individuals vary significantly in their motives and that personality traits are key determinants of the motives (Digman, 1997; Wiggins & Trapnell, 1996). For example, Digman (1997) posited that the Big Five traits could be organized by two higher-order factors (an a factor consisting of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability; a ß factor consisting of extraversion and openness), which correspond to some classic dichotomies in social psychology, such as social interests versus superiority striving (Adler, 1939), and communion versus agency (Bakan, 1966; Wiggins, 1991). Thus, the a and ß factors depict the same two fundamental motives. They also parallel the two dimensions derived by DeYoung (2006) called stability and plasticity. Research reveals these dimensions may have a biological and genetic basis with stability being associated with the functioning of the serotonergic system regulating emotional stability and plasticity capturing the functioning of the dopamin- ergic system, responsible for approach and exploration (i.e. extraversion, DeYoung, 2006). This provides additional evidence for the importance of these dimensions. In addition to the two commonly studied motives (getting along versus getting ahead motives), Hogan and Shelton (1998) later added a third dimension or fundamental goal: finding meaning. While the other two dimensions—getting along and getting ahead—closely align with several personality traits (Bakan, 1966; Digman, 1997) as presented above, we see finding meaning as aligned primarily with conscientiousness and, possibly, with openness to experience, thereby drawing from the other two basic motives to predict a third fundamental motive. As a result, the socioanalytic perspective provides a theoretical foundation to link the Big Five traits with unique motives (i.e. getting along, getting ahead, and finding meaning) and corresponding work behaviors (Chiaburu et al., 2011;Oh & Berry, 2009). Specifically, Hogan and Holland (2003) posited that agreeableness, emotional stability, and conscientiousness are associated with getting along, while openness, extraversion, and emotional stability are associated with getting status. Based on the corresponding links between the personality traits and motives, they further posit that individuals are particularly motivated to engage in certain behaviors that are aligned with those motives, explaining the increased validity of the Big Five traits. Similarly, a set of recent meta-analyses based on this framework found that the Big Five traits differentially predicted 358 † The Academy of Management Annals various employee work behaviors that would require different motives (Chiaburu et al., 2011). For example, the authors found that extraversion and openness were linked to behavior matching a getting ahead motive (i.e. change-oriented behaviors) to a greater extent than other personality traits.

Cognitive-motivational strivings. In addition to socioanalytic theory, Barrick et al. (2002) developed a model of cognitive-motivational strivings to establish the specific links between the Big Five traits and individuals’ wants and desires. The model includes three key motivational striving factors. Two of them parallel the two broad motivational intentions identified in socioanalytic theory. Specifically, communion striving reflects the fundamental desire to obtain acceptance and establish harmony in interpersonal relations (Hogan, 1996), while status striving captures an individual’s motivation to acquire power, influence, and prestige within the organizational hierarchies (Bakan, 1966; Hogan, 1983). According to the socioanalytic perspective, communion striving and status striving are relevant in contexts with high social interactions (Hogan & Holland, 2003). However, individuals may also perform tasks in contexts with limited social interactions. Therefore, Barrick et al. (2002) added a third motivational striving dimension: accomplishment striving, which reflects an individual’s task-focused orientation to gain competency that can be independent of other people. Empirically, employee communion striving was associated with agreeableness, accomplishment striving was associated with conscientiousness, and status striving was linked with extraversion. Based on the three-dimensional model of cognitive motional strivings, Barrick et al.’s (2013) new theory, the TPWB also recognized that individuals have a fundamental desire to gain control and to pursue personal growth. Therefore, a fourth dimension, autonomy and personal growth striving, reflecting a desire to have discretion over job tasks, including what to do, when, and how to do it (Deci & Ryan, 2000; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Mount, Barrick, Scullen, & Rounds, 2005) as well as the pursuit of personal growth and learning was added to the model. Because the TPWB integrates both motivational mediators and moderating situational mechanisms through which personality affects outcomes, we review this theory in detail in the following section.

Theories of Personality and Boundary Conditions Many theories have been developed to understand the moderating mechanisms of the effects of personality. These include situational strength research (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Meyer, Dalal, & Bonaccio, 2009; Meyer et al., 2010), trait activation theory (Tett & Burnett, 2003), the CAPS, and the TPWB (Barrick et al., 2013). These theories embrace a central idea that human behavior is a product of individual dispositional factors and the Retaining the Productive Employee † 359 environment where the person lives. Yet, they differ in several key aspects: the driving force of behavior, the conceptualization of the situation, and the processes of the interactions. For example, both situational strength research and trait activation theory acknowledge that personality is the primary predictor of the behavior, while CAPS emphasizes the dominant role of the situation in driving speciﬁc behaviors. Whereas CAPS deﬁnes the situation in state-like ways, the TPWB focuses on the job itself, emphasizing motivational job characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1975) and social attributes (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Humphrey et al., 2007).

Situational strength. Among theories of personality-situation interactions, situational strength is perhaps most frequently invoked (Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Meyer et al., 2010). A key assumption of situational strength theory is that the relationships between personality traits and behaviors are a function of situational strength which is defined as implicit or explicit cues provided by external entities regarding the desirability of potential behaviors (Meyer et al., 2010). Situational strength is posited to suppress individuals from expres- sing their tendencies to engage in particular courses of action. This pressure thus reduces relevant behavioral variance and attenuates subsequent trait– outcome relationships. For example, prior research has suggested a significant negative relationship between agreeableness and voluntary turnover (Zimmer- man, 2008). However, according to the underlying logic of situational strength research, this correlation should be attenuated among employees who are employed in a depressed job market, which prevents the unfettered pursuit of alternative courses of action (Meyer et al., 2010). Additionally, Meyer and colleagues systematically reviewed situational strength research and clarified that the concept includes four facets: clarity, consistency, constraints, and consequences. Based on these facets, a situation can be conceptualized as either strong or weak. The strong situation attenuates the personality-behavior relationship, while the weak situation accentuates it. Thus, research on situation strength specifies a boundary condition of personality and hence answers an important question of when personality traits matter (i.e. in weak situations). Because the theory conceptualizes the situation in a very broad way (i.e. weak versus strong), it often serves as an overarching umbrella framework consisting of various moderators such as job autonomy and job complexity (two commonly studied moderators in personality research). In other words, many situations can be categorized as either strong or weak. For example, using the situational strength argument, Barrick and Mount (1993) found that conscientiousness and extraversion had greater effects on job performance for managers in jobs high in autonomy because job autonomy reflects the degree of constraints or latitude an employee experiences and thus can be classified as a weak situation (Meyer et al., 2009). The second moderator commonly examined is task complexity (Chen et al., 360 † The Academy of Management Annals

2001). Personality, like cognitive ability, is expected to be an even more influential predictor of performance and motivation when tasks are more complex rather than in simpler tasks (Martocchio & Judge, 1997; Schmidt & Hunter, 1998). Essentially, these two moderators are based on the idea of situational strength. However, situational strength research can be criticized as oversim- plifying the situation or capturing it very generally and thus not providing suf- ficient specificity of predictions.

Trait activation theory. Another influential theory specifying the personality–situation interaction is trait activation theory developed by Tett and Burnett (2003). Compared to situational strength research, the theory offers more specific predictions by positing that personality traits are expressed as responses to trait-relevant situational cues. A key feature of the theory is the focus on situation-trait relevance that certain traits and specific situations may be matched together because of common cues (e.g. agreeable individuals in teams encouraging cooperation). A situation is relevant to a trait if it is connected due to the provision of cues, and where responses indicate a person’s standing on the trait. Thus, individuals would tend to engage in certain behaviors as expressions of their traits when presented with trait-relevant situational cues. For example, working in teams provides social cues that activate agreeable people’s tendencies to collaborate and engage in helping behaviors toward teammates. Similarly, extraverts may exhibit competitive behaviors in a situation using forced ranking. This theory is widely used in the field, as it requires researchers to link situational cues to personality traits thereby providing an explicit test of the personality–situation interaction (Haaland & Chris- tiansen, 2002; Li, Liang, & Crant, 2010; Lievens, Chasteen, Day, & Christiansen, 2006).

Cognitive-affective personality system. Both situational strength and trait activation theory emphasize the driving role of personality in predicting behavior and the moderating role of the situation. In contrast, Mischel and Shoda’s (1995) CAPS takes a different outlook to conceptualize the personality-situation interaction. Speciﬁcally, the theory argues that an individual’s speciﬁc behavior in a given situation is dominantly determined by the situation itself. Personality does not predict the behavior itself, but explains variance in behavior across different situations. As a result, instead of predicting aggregated, global employee behavior, the theory is useful in explaining changes in employees’ moment-to-moment behavior. This certainly limits the generalizability of the theory because in real organizational settings, managers often value employees’ long-term contributions.

The theory of purposeful work behavior. One final transition in this section could be to focus on one integrative theoretical framework—the theory of purposeful work behavior. Although a number of theories have been proposed to Retaining the Productive Employee † 361 explain the personality–situation interaction, they often overlook the mediating mechanisms that explain the interaction. In other words, P x E theories lack a systematic approach to integrating the mediating and moderating processes through which personality affects behavior. To remedy these limitations, Barrick et al. (2013) developed TPWB, which integrates the two most dominant theoretical perspectives in organizational research and considers the joint effects of personality and job characteristics on employee motivational states and subsequent behaviors. A key feature of the theory is to introduce higher-order goals as the integrative mechanism that links the distal motivational forces from internal, individual sources (personality) and external, situational factors (task characteristics and social roles). The theory proposes that individuals are striving to achieve four fundamental higher-order implicit goals, including communion, status, achievement, and autonomy striving, which lead to motivational processes (e.g. self-efficacy, action goals, and expec- tations) and work outcomes. Specifically, Barrick et al. (2013) argued that personality traits initiate purposeful goal strivings, and when the motivational forces derived from job and social characteristics match these purposeful striving goals, individuals tend to experience greater meaningfulness at work. In turn, experienced meaningfulness triggers task-specific motivation processes directly driving performance and withdrawal work behaviors. The theory employs an agentic perspective (i.e. individuals are the “motor” initiating motivational forces), which is a significant shift from the traditional perspective that employee motivational forces are primarily imposed by external, situational factors (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). For example, consider the expanded job and social characteristics model (Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Humphrey et al., 2007), meta-analytic evidence convincingly shows that various classes of task or social characteristics are fulfilling for workers. It goes on to propose that the reason this occurs is because doing the tasks or engaging in the social relationships satiates three key psychological states (Hackman & Oldham, 1975). What the theory fails to explicitly consider is that one’s standing on the personality traits could serve as an underlying causal influence that makes these psychological states salient to the person. That is, to fully comprehend why job enrichment matters, we need to first understand what motivates the person. To the extent personality is involved, it introduces the notion that people will react differently to the various changes associated with job enrichment. Thus, an individual’s standing on these traits is likely to differentially affect the valence of the four fundamental goal strivings held by that individual. Once those inner desires and strivings are known, the individuals’ task, social, and power characteristics of the work setting can be redesigned to optimally enhance their motivational impact. These effects are however not limited to task, social, and power characteristics of the job. In this review, whether considering the effects of job enrichment, leadership, mentoring, person-job fit, goal setting, or organizational 362 † The Academy of Management Annals culture and high-involvement work practices, personality has the potential to influence the perception and interpretation of these key relationships. Wher- ever motivation matters, Barrick and colleagues’ position is that an individual’s standing on these personality traits is relevant and that it will help predict work effectiveness better compared to when one does not account for personality. In summary, our proposed moderation effects in Figure 1 are necessarily broad particularly when combined with key mediators, and can inform finer-grained predictions. In earlier research, to provide a basis for testing boundary conditions for personality traits, scholars focused on moderators that could accentuate or attenuate the relationship between personality traits and more distal (performance) outcomes (e.g. the conscientiousness–performance relationship moderated by autonomy; Barrick & Mount, 1993). Using a similar situational strength-based argumentation, we argue here that personality traits can be connected through a more complete model with links to both proximal (e.g. consciousness to goal setting and mediator) and distal (performance and outcome) constructs, with all relationships moderated by the same boundary condition (e.g. autonomy; cf. Preacher, Rucker, & Hayes, 2007). The flexibility of the model is illustrated when one realizes different moderators can also be posited for different parts of the model. The key is future researchers must clearly describe whether these theoretical moderators moderate the effect on the mediators (e.g. TPWB) or moderate the effects of the mediator on more distal outcomes (e.g. socioanalytic theory), as the interpretation of each trait x situation moderation effect certainly is different. From another direction, characteristics of the environment (specific tasks, job characteristics, and role aspects) may act as moderators that strengthen the relationship between personality and outcomes. On the one hand, over longer periods of time, it is possible for one’s personality to change based on environmental constraints or facilitators (Roberts, 2006; Wood & Roberts, 2006). On the other hand, it could be that these cues from the environment have simply allowed these pre-existing personality traits to exhibit stronger effects.

A Primer on Aggregating Personality To set a ﬁrmer foundation to move the ﬁeld forward, we believe it necessary to underscore the critical role aggregation plays when establishing the ways in which personality guides a variety of workplace behaviors. Global traits like the FFM are often thought as most useful for explanation and theory development, but that lower level traits are better in prediction (Oswald & Hough, 2011). However, by recognizing the import of aggregation one can see that the global traits captured by the FFM predict employee effectiveness even better than researchers have heretofore realized if we “match” the aggregation breadth of these personality traits to equally broad overall performance and withdrawal from work criteria. Retaining the Productive Employee † 363

Specifically, in the next section we develop a theoretical model based on the principle of compatibility to reconceptualize the effects of personality on broadly defined work outcomes. We then test this theoretical model using meta-analytic procedures. It should be noted that our analysis is limited by the empirical evidence available in the personality literature, thus a full test of the model, including both mediating and moderating mechanisms, as presented in Figure 1 is not possible. Instead, the analyses we report next serves as an initial step to demonstrate the importance of aggregating for personality when determining employee work effectiveness. It is our hope that with the further accumulation of empirical evidence in the literature, our integrative framework can serve as a guideline for future research. Our approach will also summarize prior quantitative reviews that underscore the stability of personality to illustrate that gains in prediction from personality are long-lasting phenomena, not fleeting reactions to external stimuli or to organizational interventions.

The Role of the Compatibility Principle Prior research has demonstrated the predictive validity of personality and, as we discussed earlier, has also established mediating and moderating mechanisms through which personality influences employee behavior. Yet, a spirited debate about the utility of personality in predicting important work outcomes continues. To still be questioning the utility of personality after accumulating such abundant data (Morgeson et al., 2007) is an elemental conundrum. There are a number of explanations for this rather injudicious conclusion. Some have to do with the plethora of constructs used to measure traits; others derive from artifacts (such as sampling error and measurement error), potentially magnify- ing differences in results across studies. One of the most compelling reasons for debate related to the predictive validity of personality is also one of the most fundamental: the inadequacy of existing theory to recognize the nearly unlim- ited bandwidth of the FFM of personality when predicting employee performance and withdrawal. Discussions of predictive validity quickly become discussions about the importance of shifting from global traits to narrower traits to increase validity (Judge, Rodell, Klinger, Simon, & Crawford, 2013). However, this is only true if the criterion is also narrow. Although narrower traits do take on the appear- ance of being more fine-grained and precise, narrow constructs also offer much less explanation (Funder, 2009). Below, we argue that the “explanatory power” inherent in the global FFM traits has not been fully exploited in prior research and consequently, may provide more useful answers to criteria managers actually are keenly interested in—e.g. will this applicant or existing employee be successful in doing the myriad of tasks required by this job over the next three to five years? In the next section, we more fully advance 364 † The Academy of Management Annals this issue by developing a theoretical framework and briefly summarizing meta-analytic validities. Specifically, we conduct a quantitative analysis of the meta-analytic data, to demonstrate for the first time, the value of broadly defined personality traits when predicting equally broad coverage of work outcomes, including employee performance and commitment to and engagement in their work. The theoretical framework developed in this review relies primarily on the compatibility principle, as formulated by Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) and as applied to predicting specific behavior in a single instance (Ajzen, 1991) to predicting broad behavioral criteria (Harrison et al., 2006). In 1974, Fishbein and Ajzen concluded that very broad attitudes (e.g. overall satisfaction toward one’s work role) would correlate highly with equally broad behavioral outcomes (e.g. how engaged or motivated an employee is over time) but not with a single instance of behavior (e.g. showing up at 2 pm on Friday for a meeting). Known as the compatibility principle, and extended to personality in our review, the present conceptualization for max- imizing the predictive validity of personality to higher performance and lower withdrawal depends upon carefully matching predictors and outcomes to compatible levels of generality or aggregation. Specifically, we propose that the true strength of the relationship between the global FFM personality traits and work behavior has not been optimally examined. Applying the compatibility principle led us to recognize that to match or be compatible with the general, highly aggregated levels representative of contemporary models of personality (Barrick et al., 2001), the work effectiveness criteria had to be equally broad, general effectiveness outcomes. As summarized above, we focus on two broad work effectiveness constructs, consisting of work performance and withdrawal behaviors, both critical to any organization. These outcomes identify fundamentally different outcomes—one assessing whether individuals perform their work well, the other depicting their choice to withhold their work-related time and contributions. The two higher-order latent behavioral effectiveness dimensions shown in Figure 2 are sufficiently broad to capture all, or nearly all, individual-level work behaviors deemed relevant to accomplishing organizational objectives. More importantly, for the first time, our review examines whether behavioral science research has underestimated the true predictive validity of the FFM of personality by failing to aggregate behavior up to higher, more general, levels of employee effectiveness. We believe that systematically reviewing the effects of personality on broad outcomes is necessary because previous personality research has extensively focused on predicting task or job performance, while performance research clearly shows the significant impacts of other functional and dysfunctional behaviors on organizational effectiveness (Grant & Ashford, 2008; Organ, Podsakoff, & MacKenzie 2006; Podsakoff, Whiting, Podsakoff, & Blume, 2009). Importantly, some recent meta-analytic studies examining the relationships between personality and functional behaviors at Retaining the Productive Employee † 365

Figure 2 Conceptual Framework for Connecting FFM with Employee Effectiveness. work make it possible to further investigate how personality traits inﬂuence broad work effectiveness criteria. The aggregation of work effectiveness outcomes is presented in Figure 2.

As shown in Figure 2, we conceptualize work performance and employee withdrawal behaviors as higher-order latent constructs. It is important to note that there are two approaches to model a latent construct: as a reflective measurement model or as a formative measurement model. The distinction between the two models is based on the direction of the relationship between the construct and its indicators: either from the construct to the measures (reflective measurement) or from the measures to the construct (formative measurement, Diamantopoulos, Riefler, & Roth, 2008). Previous research on work behaviors has almost exclusively modeled higher-order latent performance constructs using reflective models (Harrison et al., 2006, Parker & Collins, 2010), which implies that the latent performance construct (e.g. work effectiveness) causes specific performance dimensions (e.g. task performance and contextual performance, Harrison et al., 2006). However, a formative model is also possible since specific task or citizenship work behaviors can be meaningfully distinguished and thus combining them into an overall work effectiveness factor may simply represent overall value to the organization. For two reasons, however, we conceptualize the two higher-order effectiveness constructs using the reflective measure model rather than formative model. First, from a theoretical perspective, we view personality as the “motor” driving one’s behaviors. Hence, performance and withdrawal 366 † The Academy of Management Annals behaviors are the result of the individual striving to fulfill those traits, and consequently, are reflective measures. Stated more succinctly, we assume the higher-order work effectiveness constructs, at least to some extent, arise from enduring personal attributes of the employee (e.g. a desirable or an unde- sirable employee), which actually causes the employee to exhibit specific work behaviors (e.g. high task performance or low withdrawal behavior). Second, from an empirical perspective, accumulated evidence has revealed strong correlations among specific performance dimensions (Harrison et al., 2006; Podsakoff et al., 2009), which is consistent with the key assumption of a reflective measurement model: all indicators must be positively intercorre- lated (Bollen, 1984; Diamantopoulos et al., 2008). In contrast, in a formative measurement model, indicators can be positively or negatively correlated (Bollen, 1984). In fact, the observed strong positive correlations found among job performance dimensions may cause multicollinearity and esti- mation difficulties in formative models (Diamantopoulos et al., 2008). Application of the compatibility principle theoretically extends the work of researchers who have previously argued for the need to match broad personality constructs, such as conscientiousness, with overall ratings of job performance (Barrick et al., 2001; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Ones et al., 2007). In fact, this leads us to propose even higher levels of aggregation. Evidence for the utility of predicting aggregated performance behaviors with general personality traits such as conscientiousness is supported when the same trait positively influences not only the employees’ task performance, but also their contextual (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000) and proactive performance (Chiaburu et al., 2011; Parker & Collins, 2010). Despite the existence of separate lines of research supporting this view (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000; Thomas, Whitman, & Viswesvaran, 2010), researchers have not considered that conscientiousness, as well as other FFM traits, would predict to a greater extent an even broader performance outcome that simultaneously combines task, contextual, and proactive performance. Like- wise, we propose that predictive efficacy will improve further if one also considers a broader criterion of withdrawal, combining absenteeism, CWBs and turnover. Extending prior research showing that conscientious employees are less likely to withdraw, to be late, to engage in CWBs, or to quit their jobs (Berry et al., 2007; Zimmerman, 2008), in this review we examine for the first time the relationship with all of these criteria concurrently. To do so, we use new and existing meta-analytic data to clarify the consequences of personality, which is carefully matched with outcomes on both bandwidth and specificity. This allows us to establish the importance of compatibility in aggregation with such broad personality traits, after controlling for artifactual variance across organizations and samples. It also makes it possible to examine whether the strength in the true-score correlations of these comprehensive personality measures is more substantial than heretofore realized. In Retaining the Productive Employee † 367 short, we propose that the FFM traits will have higher predictive validities when matched to two distinct kinds of work outcomes that are, for the first time, equally broad representative indicators of a worker’s effectiveness at work, based on the worker’s performance and withdrawal behaviors exhibited while on the job (Campbell, 1990).

Work Effectiveness: Aggregated Work Performance and Withdrawal Work performance. Work performance refers to a combination of tasks and activities performed by employees over time. Thus, it is neither evaluated based on a single behavior nor based on a single instance. Instead, it is the sum of evaluations of employees’ contributions to discriminable elements or tasks. That is, work performance is typically assessed over long periods, generally reflecting an employee’s contributions over a year. Such evaluations reflect broad archetypical effectiveness criteria (Nagle, 1953; Schmidt & Kaplan, 1971; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2005). Scholars have indeed systematically expanded the performance criterion space to include task performance, citizenship or contextual performance, and proactive performance (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Grant & Parker, 2009; Harrison et al., 2006; Organ, Podsakoff, & Podsakoff, 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010). Research addressing the dimensionality of job behavior highlights an important issue: in addition to unique job-related behaviors, there are similar cat- egories of behaviors that span across jobs (Harrison et al., 2006; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Recognizing that the value of work outcomes can be very broadly defined, next we outline the components of the work effectiveness outcome used in this study. As illustrated in Figure 2, to construe work performance as broadly as the FFM, we argue performance consists of task performance, contextual performance, and proactive performance. Task performance reflects job-specific performance and generic forms of task proficiency or technical requirements. These evaluations focus on the core task responsibilities directly responsible for producing the output valued by the organization (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997): assembling a car (GM), delivering a package (FedEx), or completing an audit (KPMG). Task performance captures how well people do all of the core task elements of their work that exists for a particular purpose (i.e. their job) and is structured in a way that leads to attainment of the goals for which they are held responsible. For the past two decades, organizational scholars have also acknowledged that, in addition to task performance, contextual performance represents an important dimension of overall employee job performance (Borman & Moto- widlo, 1997; Organ et al., 2010). Contextual performance reflects discretionary behaviors that help support task performance or contribute in aggregate to organizational goals (Borman & Motowidlo, 1997; Motowidlo, 2003; 368 † The Academy of Management Annals

Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000; Organ & Ryan, 1995). Referred to as contextual performance (Motowidlo, 2003) or citizenship (Organ & Ryan, 1995; Organ et al., 2006) these behaviors represent performance that is conceptually aggregated to relatively high levels of abstraction and contributes to the social and psychological core of the organization or unit (Rotundo & Sackett, 2002). Because of its different focus, contextual performance can be distinguished from task performance (Johnson, 2001). Another related performance dimension has arisen due to the rapid rate of change at work emerging from transformative, technological, economic, and social forces (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Grant & Parker, 2009; Parker & Collins, 2010; Van Dyne, Cummings, & McLean Parks, 1995). This criterion captures, through a proactive stance, how employees change the characteristics of their job and work situation in response to constantly changing work demands through behaviors such as adaptability, individual initiative, taking charge, or providing ideas for improvement (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). We depict these increasingly important employee behaviors as proactive performance, behaviors considered improvement-directed, future-focused, and aimed at constructive changes (Bindl & Parker, 2010; Grant & Ashford, 2008). Overall, these three dimensions comprehensively capture current conceptualizations of the aggregate expected value of the employee’s performance behaviors by including, in addition to a focus on task performance, two other essential parts capturing employee roles as a “good soldier” and “good change agent”.

Employee withdrawal. Work withdrawal provides another broad domain of individual effectiveness and depicts various forms of detachment from work, ranging from showing up late, if at all (absenteeism) to turnover from the organization (Hulin, 1991; Hulin, Roznowski, & Hachiya, 1985). To illustrate withdrawal as a distinct construct from performance (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaert- ner, 2000), it is critical for organizations to not only employ high performing individuals, but also high performing individuals who stay. Importantly, to predict withdrawal behaviors using personality, the behavior must be initiated at the discretion of the employee. Voluntary absenteeism or turnover is inten- tional, and represents instances when the employee chooses to skip work or leave the organization (Hulin, 1991). Clearly, this form of withdrawal directly represents ineffective behavior, as the employee chooses not to contribute to organizational goals. In contrast, involuntary turnover is initiated by the employer (termination, reduction in force) and would not be predicted by the employee’s attributes. Thus, in this review we focus on voluntary withdrawal behavior rather than involuntary withdrawal. Prior research has indicated that personality traits, particularly the “functional employee” traits of conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness (Mount & Barrick, 1995) are associated with less employee withdrawal (Zimmerman, 2008). Retaining the Productive Employee † 369

To these, we add CWBs (Sackett & DeVore, 2001; Spector & Fox, 2005), a diverse set of behaviors and outcomes that detract from the contributions of the employee to the organization or other employees (Sackett, 2002), disrupt task execution, can be antisocial or diverge from organizationally desired behaviors. Researchers originally conceptualized counterproductive behavior as merely the opposite pole of contextual performance (Sackett & Lievens, 2008). However, recent empirical research reveals that counterproductive behavior is separate from contextual performance when examined in the aggregate (Berry et al., 2007; Dalal, 2005; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2005). Counterproductive behaviors are aimed toward other employees or the organization itself and include lateness, rule-breaking, unruliness, theft, violence, drug misuse on the job, and sabotage. Researchers recently realized such negative and destructive behaviors represent another form of withdrawal (Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Rotundo & Sackett, 2002; Sackett, 2002). To ensure the two-factor model of employee effectiveness shown in Figure 2 is broad and comprehensive enough, we also examine the predictive validity of the FFM with one consolidated overarching work effectiveness outcome. A summary construct based on both factors (work performance and withdrawal)— labeled employee effectiveness—will include quite different types of behavior collectively aggregated to the highest level to provide a comprehensive view of the individual’s contributions to organizational goals. Such an inclusive measure (i.e. employee effectiveness) would universally embody the value of attaining core job requirements, exhibiting behaviors that adapt to or support these core task requirements while remaining engaged with work over time.

Aggregated Personality The list of constructs depicting various personality traits depends on the level of trait generality (McAdams, 1995; McAdams & Emmons, 1995) ranging from a few very broad traits, to numerous relatively specific characteristics “situated in time, place, and role” (McAdams, 1995, p. 379). Based on the theoretical arguments reviewed thus far (Ajzen, 1991; Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996; Schneider, Hough, & Dunnette, 1996), the broad employee effectiveness criteria just described will best be predicted by correspondingly general, highly aggregated predictors. The principle of aggregation has shown that personality, by its very nature, can be aggregated up to a small number of basic dimensions. As previously reviewed, the FFM is the most widely accepted set of such highly aggregated measures in the field (Barrick & Mount, 2005; Goldberg, 1993). The existence of the five broad factors has been reported by several independent sets of researchers (Digman, 1990). The universality of this structure has also been shown by replicating the same FFM traits across seven basic language families that comprehensively 370 † The Academy of Management Annals represent the native languages of most of the inhabitants of the world (McCrae & Costa, 1997). We note that, considering our compatibility principle-based arguments, a more pointed focus on FFM facets would be too narrow, and thus inconsistent with the theory. Conversely, a broader focus on a smaller number of factors (Digman, 1997) would be inconsistent with the current evidence supporting a FFM structure (Ashton et al., 2009; McCrae et al., 2008). Several important points provide support that such broad and comprehensive personality traits have substantial utility. First, even correlations of .25 can be important if the cumulative effects from the prediction are obtained across an employee’s whole career (Abelson, 1985; Judge et al., 1999). Personality stabilizes in early adulthood and remains comparatively consistent over time (Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1994; Roberts, Walton, & Viechtbauer, 2006; Terracciano, Costa, & McCrae, 2006); consequently, an effect of .25 on performance and withdrawal may be obtained day-after-day, year-after-year. Cumulating the effects of personality on an employee’s behavior over one’s entire career can be consequential for organizations (Judge et al., 1999) even if the magnitude of the correlation appears modest. Second, recent research on job design (Humphrey et al., 2007; Zimmerman, 2008) reveals that the effects of personality traits are at least as strong as the effects obtained from distal motivational effects of the situation. Scholars have long-advocated for the pre-eminence of the predictive utility of the situation (Davis-Blake & Pfeffer, 1989); yet recent meta-analytic results reveal true- score correlations of only .10–.23 (Humphrey et al., 2007; Zimmerman, 2008) across job design attributes when predicting job performance and withdrawal. Importantly, such empirical findings illustrate that the .30 barrier applies to both person and situation predictors of human behavior. An additional point is that interventions (e.g. the use of incentive pay, recognition, goal setting, training, supervision, and even leadership) that organizations use to simultaneously reward employees to increase performance and decrease withdrawal can be limited in number and consume resources. Thus, being able to predict nearly 10% of the variance by assessing just one construct is practically and theoretically significant. In sum, what appear to be modest effect sizes can have a much larger impact than one might expect, after considering all of the other organizational attempts to impact employee effectiveness. Third, the practical significance of a predictor depends on more than just the magnitude of its correlation with an outcome. Stated differently, the nature of the outcome itself matters as well. To predict how successful and per- sistent an employee is on task, contextual, and adaptive behaviors over an entire year at work would appear to be a significant accomplishment, certainly more so than predicting whether an employee shows up on time for a meeting next Friday. Hence, from both theoretical and practical perspectives, it is critical to consider what is being predicted. Retaining the Productive Employee † 371

In this review, we contend researchers have failed to recognize the implications of the full breadth of the FFM personality model because they have tried to predict more specific facets of performance (Oswald & Hough, 2011). For the first time, we argue that each of the FFM personality traits is sufficiently broad as a predictor, one that comprehensively assesses an individual’s habitual ways of thinking, feeling, and doing over situations and times. To fully realize the variety of information contained in such global FFM trait-based predictions, we must examine an equally broad, comprehensive criterion. Thus, application of the compatibility principle (Ajzen, 1988; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1974; Harrison et al., 2006) led us to empirically examine the proposition that these superordi- nate personality traits will predict equally aggregated, overall employee effectiveness criteria better than more specific dimensions of work effectiveness frequently used in current research (e.g. task performance). Thus, we anticipate the practical significance of these predictors to be even more important than we have previously realized. Specifically, our results should reveal that the FFM predicts and explains substantially better when matched with very broad and comprehensive performance and withdrawal factors, disconfirming the theory that better prediction of behavior can only occur with the more numerous facets or primary level traits (Mershon & Gorsuch, 1988; Paunonen & Ashton, 2001).

Quantitative Review Process To test the proposed model (Figure 2), we utilized meta-analytic structural equation modeling (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995) based on a meta-analytic matrix of relationships among FFM traits, and employee effectiveness criteria. Meta-analytic estimates needed for this review were obtained from two sources. These include both (a) previously published meta-analyses and (b) several original meta-analyses conducted for this review (when effect sizes from prior meta-analyses were unavailable). We searched the literature using keywords such as FFM, Big Five, conscientiousness, emotional stability, neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, combined with search terms related to behavioral criteria (e.g. contextual performance, OCB, helping, adaptive performance, and CWB). We searched in multiple research databases, including Business Source Complete (EBSCO), PsycINFO (1887–2010), and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses databases. To obtain a complete meta-analytic correlation matrix required 55 effect sizes. Prior meta-analytic estimates were obtained for 45 of these effect sizes (Barrick et al., 2001; Berry et al., 2007; Bycio, 1992; Chiaburu et al., 2011; Dalal, 2005; Griffeth et al., 2000; Koslowsky, Sagie, Krausz, & Singer, 1997; Mitra, Jenkins, & Gupta, 1992; Ones, Viswesvaran, & Reiss, 1996; Podsakoff et al., 2009; Zimmerman, 2008).1 After an extensive search for existing meta- analyses, 10 new meta-analyses were still required. These new meta-analytic estimates are presented in Appendix 2. 372 † The Academy of Management Annals

Measures. On the predictor side, FFM personality traits are broad, well- accepted measures of dispositional individual differences. We followed the deﬁnitions used by Barrick et al. (2001) for personality. Concerning our criteria, we operationalized contextual performance as employee behaviors not formally part of the job yet involving helping and cooperating with others in the organization to get tasks done (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993, 1997; Organ et al., 2006). Thus, we included published meta-analyses and primary studies, including behaviors such as altruism, conscientiousness (a dimension of citizenship behavior, not a trait), citizenship, contextual performance, civic virtue, general compliance, and sportsmanship (Podsakoff et al., 2000). For proactive performance, typical behaviors included employee adaptability, creative performance, innovative behavior, personal initiative, proactive behaviors, speaking up, and taking charge (Chiaburu, Lorinkova, & Van Dyne, 2013; Grant & Ashford, 2008; Parker & Collins, 2010). For withdrawal behaviors, consistent with existing deﬁnitions and operationalizations of CWB, we included existing meta-analyses and primary studies that contain behaviors such as CWBs, employee deviance, dysfunctional behavior, noncompliant behavior, and retaliation (Cullen & Sackett, 2003; Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Sackett & DeVore, 2001). Thus, each of these criteria can be seen to be very broad in coverage, just like the FFM.

Analytic strategy and model comparisons. Combining the newly generated meta-analytic estimates with existing estimates obtained from published meta- analyses, we constructed the meta-analytic correlation matrix shown in Appendix 1. This enabled us to examine the predictive validity of personality traits on higher-order behavioral criteria using meta-analytic structural equation modeling (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). Although published meta- analyses showed the bivariate correlations between the predictors and the behavioral criteria, our approach has an important advantage: it has the capability to test complex aggregated models. This has not been done in either single primary studies or in previously published stand-alone meta-analyses. We compared a series of theoretically competing models to determine the best fit model that represents a close approximation to true structural relationships between the FFM traits and higher-order behavioral criteria in the population (Harrison et al., 2006; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Building on the best fit model identified, we examine the validity of FFM on aggregated outcomes and compare the effects of FFM on different behavioral criteria. The core of our argument is that the validity of the FFM traits on work effectiveness is maximized when the breadth of the criterion matches the breadth of the broad, general predictors assessed by the FFM. As revealed by our empirical tests using structural equation modeling, our a priori specified model (Figure 2), consisting of two separate criteria, in which task, contextual, and proactive performance represent a higher-order performance construct, and Retaining the Productive Employee † 373

CWB, absenteeism, and turnover represent a higher-order withdrawal construct, displayed superior model fit (x2 ¼ 763.5, df ¼ 24, goodness of fit index (GFI) ¼ .96, comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ .89, standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) ¼ .05) than other models (including a six factor model where all criteria were independent, a one factor model where all outcomes formed one dimension, and several in between conceptually plausible models).2 All the factor loadings of behavior indicators on two higher-order latent constructs were significant and ranged from .31 (absenteeism) to .83 (task performance). The average value of factor loading was .58. Our results indicate that the hypothesized model represents a close approximation to the true structural relationships between the FFM traits and higher-order behavioral criteria in the population.

The predictive validity of the FFM traits on employee effectiveness.We posited that the validity of the FFM traits on aggregated outcomes will increase substantially compared to previous meta-analyses focusing on narrower performance outcomes (e.g. task performance and turnover). To be comparable to previous meta-analyses, which estimated bivariate correlations between personality and performance, we examined the independent effect of each FFM trait on aggregated employee work performance and withdrawal behavior and reported the standardized structural path, which can be interpreted as a correlation between latent constructs (Harrison et al., 2006). Table 1 presents standardized path coefficients of the relationships between the FFM predictors and these two criteria. Specifically, predictive validities for the aggregated performance (task, contextual, and proactive) and withdrawal behaviors (absenteeism, CWB, and turnover) are reported in columns 1 and 4, respectively. These validities are contrasted with prior validities reported using overall job performance and counterproductive behaviors in columns 2 and 5, respectively. Evidence that the FFM predicts the aggregated criteria better than specific performance dimensions is reported in columns 3 and 6. Concerning the aggregated work performance criterion, conscientiousness had a moderate relationship with employee performance (g ¼ .28), and explained 8% variance in this outcome. The other four predictors had smaller effects on work performance (emotional stability, g ¼ .15; agreeableness, g ¼ .11; extraversion, g ¼ .14; and openness, g ¼ .11). To examine whether there were significant gains in prediction after aggregating the criteria, we compared our results with meta-analytic estimates from Barrick et al. (2001) for overall job performance, reported in column 2. The gains in predictive validity of the FFM traits on aggregated work performance increases by 10% to 120% (see column 3, Table 1). In every case, predictive validity was greater when broad work performance criteria were matched in breadth to the FFM. Concerning withdrawal behavior, conscientiousness had a relatively strong relationship with employee withdrawal (g ¼ 2.41), explaining a significant 374 † h cdm fMngmn Annals Management of Academy The

Table 1 Comparison of Validities of FFM Personality Traits for Aggregate Work Effectiveness Criteria Work performance Withdrawal behavior

Current Barrick et al. Validity increasec Current Berry et al. Validity increasec studya (2001)b (%) studya (2007)b (%) Conscientiousness .28(.08) .23 22 2.41(.17) 2.30 37 Emotional stability .15(.02) .12 25 2.32(.10) 2.23 39 Agreeableness .11(.01) .10 10 2.51(.26) 2.33 55 Extraversion .14(.02) .12 17 2.00(.00) 2.03 0 Openness .11(.01) .05 120 2.06(.00) 2.06 0

Notes: aCoefficients were standardized, estimated by meta-analytic structure equation modeling. To be comparable to previous meta-analyses which typically reported correlations between predictors and outcomes, we estimated the independent effect of each personality trait on two latent outcomes (i.e. work performance and withdrawal behavior) and reported the standardized structural paths (Harrison et al., 2006). All five models (i.e. including each of five personality traits) displayed acceptable model fit: GFI ranged from .96 to .98, CFI ranged from .91 to .96, and SRMR ranged from .03 to .05. R2 values are reported in parentheses. bCoefficients were taken from previous meta-analyses as reference points for comparison. cThe percentage of increase in validity from columns a to b. Retaining the Productive Employee † 375 amount of variance in the outcome (R2 ¼ .17). Emotional stability was also a moderately strong predictor of withdrawal behavior (g ¼ 2.32, R2 ¼ .10). Interestingly, agreeableness was the strongest predictor of the withdrawal factor (g ¼ 2.51), explaining a significant 26% of the variance. Conversely, extraversion and openness had negligible effects on withdrawal behavior (g ¼ 2.00 and g ¼ 2.06, respectively). We also compared our results with a recent meta-analysis examining the effects of the FFM on CWB (a narrow aspect of withdrawal behavior, as shown in column 5). These findings were used because in prior meta-analyses (Ones et al., 2007), FFM traits predicted CWB better than the other narrow withdrawal dimensions. As shown in column 6 of Table 1, the results from this comparison suggest that the validity of the three relevant FFM traits on aggregated withdrawal behavior are larger by 37–55%. The evidence presented in Table 1 supports the prediction advanced in this review and reveal significantly better prediction occurs when two broad work effectiveness criteria are chosen and does so better than any specific measure of performance or withdrawal (Barrick et al., 2001; Hum- phrey et al., 2007; One et al., 2007). The sizes of these relationships, particularly with withdrawal behavior, are also meaningfully larger than reported previously whether using personality or situational predictors (here r ¼ 2.51). Such validities are significant in part because, for the first time, we see substantially larger correlations than the .30 “barrier” that prior meta-analyses have failed to breach. To demonstrate personality is useful for predicting aggregated criteria matched to the FFM’s generality, we also report multiple validity coefficients for the FFM as a set. In Figure 3, we compare the multiple correlations when predicting specific dimensions of job-related criteria against the aggregated work criterion. The Rs reported in Figure 3 represent the best, meta- analytically derived, prediction estimates. As shown, for the performance criteria, the general, aggregated work performance criterion is only marginally

Figure 3 Meta-Analytic Multiple Validity Coefficients of the Five-Factor Personality Traits Predicting Specific and General (Aggregated) Work Effectiveness criteria. Note: Gray bars represent specific criteria, dark bars represent general (aggregated) criteria. 376 † The Academy of Management Annals larger than for contextual performance alone (R ¼ .32 versus .31, respectively). However, for the withdrawal criterion, the set of FFM predictors had a substantially larger impact on the aggregated withdrawal measure over the next largest specific withdrawal criterion (i.e. CWB) as R increases by .25: from .41 to .66. In short, a multiple validity coefficient of .66 is meaningful, particularly since basing these estimates on meta-analytic intercorrelations largely circumvents capitalization on chance.

Review Summary and Discussion This overview of prior reviews comprehensively summarizes the predictive relationships (or best practices) found with various work outcomes and also advances theoretical explanation by establishing the mediators and moderators researchers have proposed of these personality–performance relationships (as presented in Figure 1). Specifically, we integrated major theories in the personality literature to gain a better understanding of how, why, and when personality predicts important work outcomes. In addition to providing a synthesis of existing research and theories, we went one step further to develop and test a new perspective on the predictive power of personality, based on the compatibility principle, and revealed that the predictive validities of a few broad, global traits which correspond to the widely accepted FFM personality model, can only be optimally examined and understood when predicting an equally broad, general effectiveness outcome, consisting of work performance and work withdrawal, as presented in Figure 2. One primary purpose of this review was to demonstrate that broad personality traits could explain more than 5–10% of the variance in work effectiveness (Morgeson et al., 2007; Oswald & Hough, 2011). Specifically, drawing on the compatibility principle (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Harrison et al., 2006) we posited that prior research studies significantly underestimates the predictive validity of personality when using the broad, comprehensive FFM traits as predictors, because researchers have failed to match the breadth of these traits to equally broad, comprehensive criteria. Using structural equation analyses of meta-analytically determined relationships, our review substanti- ates the advantage of conceptualizing employee effectiveness as a broad set of behaviors. Indeed, the FFM personality traits, as a set, predict nearly 40% of the variance in the withdrawal criterion. The magnitude of these effects far exceeds those previously found in meta-analytic work using either personality or job design predictors (Barrick et al., 2001; Humphrey et al., 2007) when predicting specific performance or withdrawal behaviors. Thus, when one needs to know whether an individual is effective across a large number of critical outcomes, these results demonstrate the FFM traits are uniquely able to accurately predict such a large set of valuable outcomes—explaining nearly 40% of the variance—not just 5–10%. Retaining the Productive Employee † 377

The import of these ﬁndings are hard to overstate, as they reveal that an employee’s general tendency to make valuable contributions to an organization can parsimoniously be predicted by his or her personality traits. As noted by researchers “on the person side of the equation, traits are often considered broad constructs because they entail the aggregation of one’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across many situations” (Roberts, 2006, p. 12, italics added). Thus when employees’ work behaviors are aggregated to a similar level, they can be forecasted by the broad FFM personality traits better than we heretofore have realized. This does not mean that narrow personality traits do not have utility; we agree with the consensus, that to predict speciﬁc criteria, one must rely on narrower traits than the FFM. Nevertheless, when talking about very broad indicators of success at work, the FFM predict better than we have recognized.

Implications for Theories, Practices, and Future Research Building on the compatibility principle, we demonstrated the advantage of relying on a few broad, global traits in the form of the widely accepted FFM of personality when predicting two equally broad, general effectiveness outcomes—work performance and work withdrawal. Originally, Fishbein and Ajzen (1974) proposed that broad attitudes (i.e. overall job satisfaction) would predict equally broad behavioral outcomes. Extending this principle, we applied it to the personality domain. Specifically, we argued that global personality traits reflecting an employee’s habitual behavioral tendencies across situations are more valuable in predicting aggregate behavioral criteria than predicting more limited representations of behavior. Consequently, the evidence revealed several new conclusions regarding the validity of personality when assessed through the FFM. First, our review extends previous findings on conscientiousness as a powerful predictor of broadly defined performance and withdrawal behaviors, with gains in prediction ranging from 22% to 37%. While this finding is very much in line with the existing cumulative findings substantiating the role of conscientiousness in predicting work performance, it also extends it, by providing a more accurate prediction and increasing its validity. Second, our results reveal emotional stability and agreeableness had important unique effects on the broad withdrawal construct, which should cast the efficacy of these traits in a new light. Specifically, emotional stability has historically been considered an important predictor of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Connelly & Ones, 2010; Le et al., 2011). However, when considering its unique effects above and beyond the other FFM personality traits, it actually appears to be a much better predictor of withdrawal. This is not entirely surprising when considering researchers’ suggestions and empirical evidence that (lack of) emotional stability may consist not only of anxiety, negative affectivity and harm avoidance, but also of withdrawal and alienation (DeYoung, Quilty, & 378 † The Academy of Management Annals

Peterson, 2007; Widiger, 2009) and that “neuroticism is clearly a very robust predictor of negative life outcomes” (Widiger, 2009, p. 136). Our review establishes that it also plays an important role in employee withdrawal. Agreeableness, on the other hand, has often been overlooked as a worth- while predictor of work-related outcomes (with the possible exceptions of teamwork and customer service [Barrick et al., 2001]). Our results indicate that when predicting withdrawal behaviors, agreeableness is the most important predictor of employee withdrawal. Specifically, agreeableness had the strongest unique effect out of all of the FFM personality traits on withdrawal behaviors. Similar to the strength of general mental ability (GMA, or “g”, Schmidt & Hunter, 1998) in predicting work performance, agreeableness by itself explained over 25% of the variance in employee withdrawal. To coin a phrase, agreeableness is the “g” of withdrawal predictors. In sum, the evidence presented in this study reveals the triad reflecting “functional personality” (Mount & Barrick, 1995, p. 176)—consisting of conscientiousness, emotional stability, and agreeableness—is even more critical than previously recognized for the explanation of employee effectiveness, particularly withdrawal behavior. Our findings are consistent with researchers’ position that these three are actually socially desirable (Digman, 1997) and capture well social interest (Adler, 1939) and communion (Bakan, 1966). Due to this social orientation, employees are better embedded in the work social environment, through pres- ence (low absenteeism), lack of dysfunctional behaviors, and desire to remain with the organization. A third significant finding is that, in all cases, the gain in prediction through multiple correlation explained in all of these meta-analytic path analyses exceeded the .30 barrier put forth by Mischel (1968). For example, the effects of agreeableness on the narrow withdrawal components were 2.33, 2.06, and 2.27. However, the effect on the broad withdrawal factor increased substantially (2.51), supporting the utility of using aggregated outcomes. Theoretically, this is because the broad withdrawal factor indicates a latent construct that captures meaningful employee withdrawal behaviors across a wide variety of situations. To explain nearly 40% of the variance in aggregated withdrawal with five personality traits is certainly impressive, and can lead to significant reductions in withdrawal from most organizations. By using meta-analytic estimates, the relationships among the predictors and performance criteria established in this study should be widely generalizable. Fourth, our review should inform future research on conceptualizing work effectiveness (Campbell, 1990). There has been considerable controversy regarding how the separate evaluations of employee effectiveness should be combined (Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000). Over the past 20 years, the individual criterion space has steadily been broadened to include more performance dimensions (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Campbell, 1990; Harrison & Martocchio, 1998; Organ et al., 2010; Parker & Collins, 2010; Rotundo & Retaining the Productive Employee † 379

Sackett, 2002). At the same time, researchers have examined the higher-order structure of effectiveness and found evidence for a positive manifold among these dimensions (Harrison et al., 2006; Viswesvaran & Ones, 2000), and that the shared variance is not solely attributed to halo error (Viswesvaran, 1993). With respect to dimensionality, our results provide compelling evidence that there is substantial overlap among related facets of employee effectiveness and this commonality across criteria best fit a model accounting for two higher-order dimensions of employee effectiveness. In the present view, all of the constituent pieces of employee effectiveness can be explained by two distinct factors: an overall index of work performance (comprised task, contextual, and proactive performance) and another explaining withdrawal behavior (including absenteeism, turnover, and counterproductive workplace behavior). The finding that various work behaviors can be organized by two broad effectiveness factors can be explained by many theories of personality we reviewed earlier. Specifically, different types of behaviors are often driven by unique motives derived from personality factors. According to socioanalytic and other related theories (Barrick et al., 2002; Hogan & Holland, 2003), individuals actively strive to fulfill two broad goals, which may be aligned with the two broad effectiveness factors. In particular, the withdrawal factor, which reflects the extent to which individuals are willing (or not) to get along with others or be cooperative in the organization, is strongly driven by personality traits with a communion striving and social orientation (Adler, 1939; Bakan, 1966; Digman, 1997). As a result, it is important to note that these two higher-order criteria are associated with distinct dispositional predictors. Agreeableness and emotional stability had sizeable effects on employee withdrawal, but barely predicted overall work performance. Only conscientiousness was found to be a useful predictor of both criteria, and conscientiousness predicted work performance (.28) almost two times better than any of the remaining four factors (e.g. emotional stability, .15). Such findings underscore why conscientiousness is thought to be a critical universal predictor at work (Barrick et al., 2001). These distinct patterns further suggest the importance of considering the predictive validity of both higher-order factors as these two aspects of employee overall effectiveness parsimoniously and comprehensively captures numerous distinct employee behaviors at work. Relatedly, the focus on behavior arising from within the person as the genesis of the effectiveness factors highlights the flexibility with which the model can be revised. For example, one assumption underlying our model is a view of CWB presented as unitary and thus predominantly having withdrawal characteristics. Future research may reveal interpersonal aspects of CWB (e.g. aggression, incivility, and sexual harassment) better reflect behavior linked to the performance criterion, while other behaviors (theft, accidents, and lateness) remain meaningfully associated with withdrawal. While 380 † The Academy of Management Annals disentangling them was not possible here in our meta-analysis, we encourage future research to address this and other related issues. An advantage not readily apparent in our framework lies within its potential portability beyond the FFM on which we based our predictions. Research based on within-person traits or trait syndromes (e.g. goal orientation; Payne et al., 2007; proactive personality; Tornau & Frese, 2013) can be informed and benefit from our integrative view. Sixth, even though we noted the stability of personality traits, such stability should not be interpreted as immutability. As demonstrated in Roberts’ research, role demands can facilitate predictable personality changes (Roberts, 2006; Wood & Roberts, 2006). Such mean-level shifts in personality traits correspond to life transitions (e.g. people becoming higher in Openness around when they start college, higher in Conscientiousness when entering the workforce, and higher in the dominance side of Extraversion as they enter the age of promotions and parenting). Similar influences can operate in work settings, and future research should consider the influence of—and interplay among—personality traits and specific tasks, roles, or job situations. Such changes could be both beneficial and detrimental, with employees assigned to a more complex job increasing their level of Openness, while decreasing it in employees in routine suffused environments. An important consideration here, in addition to the person by situation interplay is establishing the amount of structural change necessary to generate a positive change. Seventh, in keeping with our emphasis on aggregation, we also recommend aggregation from a measurement perspective. Recent work (Oh et al., 2011; Zimmerman et al., 2010) has highlighted the importance of measuring an individual’s personality not by just the focal person’s perspective, but by also obtaining multiple observer-ratings of that individual’s personality. From a psychometric perspective (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), this will increase the reliability of the personality ratings; from a theoretical perspective (Hogan, 1996), this will capture important construct space that would otherwise have been omitted as self-ratings are based on self-presentation styles, whereas observer-ratings are based on the focal individual’s reputation founded on past behavior. On the criterion side, there has long been consensus about increasing the number of evaluators of an employee’s job performance as additional raters will increase the reliability of the ratings (Nunnally & Bern- stein, 1994). Furthermore, while there is some debate as to the unique criterion space tapped by multiple rater perspectives, there has been research support that, for at least certain types of ratings, different perspectives may provide additional substantive information about an employee’s level of performance (Kammeyer-Mueller, Steel, & Rubenstein, 2010; Murphy & DeShon, 2000; Viswesvaran, Schmidt, & Ones, 2002). Finally, our review has implications for the role of the situation in the personality–behavior relationship. Prior theory has proposed that specific Retaining the Productive Employee † 381 personality traits will only affect behavior when the thoughts and actions engendered by the trait match the demands and rewards from the specific social and task demands inherent in the job (Barrick et al., 2003; Dawis & Lof- quist, 1984; Endler & Magnusson, 1976; Hogan & Holland, 2003; Tett & Burnett, 2003). From this perspective, the situation provides trait-relevant cues that encourage individuals to express their tendencies and determines whether activation of the individual’s personality facilitates or inhibits employee effectiveness. The principle of aggregation, however, posits that the general behavioral tendencies that comprise overall employee effectiveness span across the in- and extra-role frontier. Thus, reliance on such broad effectiveness indices or behavioral tendencies subsumes the variability originating across numerous situational constraints across jobs and organizations, thereby clarifying the underlying relationship between one’s behavioral tendencies. As revealed here, personality matters whether one is attempting to understand behaviors linked to performance or retention at work. Conse- quently, personality is a core construct for HR and OB researchers.

Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge Brad Kirkman, In-Sue Oh, and Philip Roth for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Funding This research was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71302012).

Endnotes 1. The sources for existing meta-analyses used to complete our correlation matrix with effect sizes are provided as a note to our Appendix 1. 2. Detailed information of the model comparisons is available upon request.

References Abelson, R. P. (1985). A variance explanation paradox: When a little is a lot. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 129–133. Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245. Adler, A. (1939). Social interest. New York: Putnam. Ajzen, I. (1988). Attitudes, personality, and behavior. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1974). Factors inﬂuencing intentions and the intention-behavior relation. Human Relations, 27, 1–15. 382 † The Academy of Management Annals

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79–91. Bakan, D. (1966). The duality of human existence: Isolation and communion in Western man. Boston, MA: Beacon. Barbuto, J. E., & Moss, J. A. (2006). Dispositional effects in intra-organizational influence tactics: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12, 30–48. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1993). Autonomy as a moderator of the relationships between the Big Five personality dimensions and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 111–118. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2005). Yes, personality matters: Moving on to more important matters. Human Performance, 18, 359–372. Barrick, M., Mount, M., & Gupta, R. (2003). Meta-analysis of the relationship between the five-factor model of personality and Holland’s occupational types. Personnel Psychology, 56, 45–74. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 9, 9–30. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Li, N. (2013). The theory of purposeful work behavior: The role of personality, job characteristics, and experienced meaningfulness. Academy of Management Review, 38, 132–153. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. (2002). Personality and job performance: Test of the mediating effects of motivation among sales representatives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 43–51. Bell, S. T. (2007). Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 595–615. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349–360. Berry, C. M., Carpenter, N. C., & Barratt, C. L. (2012). Do other-reports of counterproductive work behavior provide an incremental contribution over self-reports? A meta-analytic comparison. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 613–636. Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, and their common correlates: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 410–424. Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2010). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 567–598). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bollen, K. A. (1984). Multiple indicators: Internal consistency or no necessary relationship? Quality and Quantity, 18, 377–385. Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 901–910. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations (pp. 71–98). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retaining the Productive Employee † 383

Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1997). Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance, 10, 99–109. Boyatzis, R. E., Good, D., & Massa, R. (2012). Emotional, social, and cognitive intelligence and personality as predictors of sales leadership performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(2), 191–201. Bruk-Lee, V., Khoury, H. A., Nixon, A. E., Goh, A., & Spector, P. E. (2009). Replicating and extending past personality/job satisfaction meta-analyses. Human Performance, 22, 156–189. Bycio, P. (1992). Job performance and absenteeism: A review and meta-analysis. Human Relations, 45, 193–220. Campbell, J. P. (1990). Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 687–732). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chen, G., Casper, W. J., & Cortina, J. M. (2001). The roles of self-efﬁcacy and task complexity in the relationships among cognitive ability, conscientiousness, and work- related performance: A meta-analytic examination. Human Performance, 14, 209–230. Chiaburu, D. S., & Harrison, D. A. (2008). Do peers make the place? Conceptual synthesis and meta-analysis of coworker effects on perceptions, attitudes, OCBs, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1082–1103. Chiaburu, D. S., Lorinkova, N. M., & Van Dyne, L. (2013). Employees’ social context and change-oriented citizenship: A meta-analysis of leader, coworker, and organizational inﬂuences. Group & Organization Management, 38, 291–333. Chiaburu, D. S., Oh, I., Berry, C. M., Li, N., & Gardner, R. G. (2011). Five-Factor Model of personality traits and organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1140–1166. Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait-multi- method-multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1266–1282. Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). Another perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. Cortina, J. M., Goldstein, N. B., Payne, S. C., Davison, H. K., & Gilliland, S. W. (2000). The incremental validity of interview scores over and above cognitive ability and conscientiousness scores. Personnel Psychology, 53, 325–351. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). Set like plaster: Evidence for the stability of adult personality. In T. F. Heatherton & J. L. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change (pp. 21–40). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Cullen, M. J., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Personality and counterproductive workplace behavior. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.), Personality and work: Reconsidering the role of personality in organizations (pp. 150–182). New York: Jossey-Bass- Pfeiffer. 384 † The Academy of Management Annals

Dalal, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1241–1255. Davis-Blake, A., & Pfeffer, J. (1989). Just a mirage: The search for dispositional effects in organizational research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 385–400. Dawis, R. V., & Lofquist, L. H. (1984). A psychological theory of work adjustment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096–1127. DeYoung, C. G. (2006). Higher-order factors of the Big Five in a multi-informant sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1138–1151. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), 880– 896. Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. P. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203–1218. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440. Digman. (1997). Higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1246–1256. Eley, T. C., Lichtenstein, P., & Moffitt, T. E. (2003). A longitudinal behavioral genetic analysis of the etiology of aggressive and nonaggressive antisocial behavior. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 383–402. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 956–974. Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Genetic contributions to antisocial personality and behavior: A meta-analytic review from an evolutionary perspective. The Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 160–180. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59–74. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduc- tion to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Fiske, D. W., & Butler, J. M. (1963). The experimental conditions for measuring individual differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23, 249–266. Foldes, H. J., Duehr, E. E., & Ones, D. S. (2008). Group differences in personality: Meta-analyses comparing five U.S. racial groups. Personnel Psychology, 61(3), 579–616. Funder, D. C. (2009). Persons, behaviors and situations: An agenda for personality psychology in the postwar era. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(2), 120–126. Ghiselli, E. E. (1974). Some perspectives for industrial psychology. American Psychologist, 29, 80–87. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26–34. Grant, A., & Ashford, S. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. Retaining the Productive Employee † 385

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning work design theories: The rise of relational and proactive perspectives. Academy of Management Annals, 3, 317– 375. Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, 463–488. Haaland, S., & Christiansen, N. D. (2002). Implications of trait activation theory for evaluating the construct validity of assessment center ratings. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 137–163. Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3), 259–286. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 159–170. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279. Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Bowler, W. M. (2007). Emotional exhaustion and job performance: The mediating role of motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 93–106. Harrison, D. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1998). Time for absenteeism: A 20-year review of origins, offshoots, and outcomes. Journal of Management, 24(3), 305–350. Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. (2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305–325. Hogan, R. (1983). A socioanalytic theory of personality. In M. M. Page (Ed.), 1982 Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 55–89). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Hogan, R. (1996). A socioanalytic perspective on the five-factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality (pp. 163–179). New York: Guilford Press. Hogan, J., & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory to evaluate personality and job-performance relations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 100–112. Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Issues and non-issues in the fidelity-bandwidth trade-off. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 627–637. Hogan, R., & Shelton, D. (1998). A socioanalytic perspective on job performance. Human Performance, 11, 129–144. Hom, P., & Griffeth, R. (1995). Employee turnover. Cincinnati, OH: Southwestern. Hough, L. M. (1998). Personality at work: Issues and evidence. In M. Hakel (Ed.), Beyond multiple choice: Evaluating alternatives to traditional testing for selection (pp. 131–166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the effect of response dis- tortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 95–108. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. Hulin, C. L. (1991). Adaptation, persistence and commitment in organizations. In M. Dunnette & L. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 445–507). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. 386 † The Academy of Management Annals

Hulin, C. L., Roznowski, M., & Hachiya, D. (1985). Alternative opportunities and withdrawal decisions: Empirical and theoretical discrepancies and an integration. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 233–250. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356. Hurtz, G. M., & Donovan, J. J. (2000). Personality and job performance: The big five revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879. Ilies, R., Fulmer, I., Spitzmuller, M., & Johnson, M. (2009). Personality and citizenship behavior: The mediating role of job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 945–959. Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: The effects of feedback and affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 453–467. Johnson, J. W. (2001). The relative importance of task and contextual performance dimensions to supervisor judgments of overall performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 984–996. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257–268. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 765– 779. Judge, T., Heller, D., & Mount, M. (2002). Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 530–541. Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52, 621–652. Judge, T. A., & Ilies, R. (2002). Relationship of personality to performance motivation: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 797–807. Judge, T. A., & Larsen, R. J. (2001). Dispositional affect and job satisfaction: A review and theoretical extension. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 67–98. Judge, T. A., Rodell, J. B., Klinger, R. L., Simon, L. S., & Crawford, E. R. (2013). Hierarchical representations of the five-factor model of personality in predicting job performance: Integrating three organizing frameworks with two theoretical perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(5), 875–925. Judge, T. A., & Watanabe, S. (1995). Is the past prologue? A test of Ghiselli’s ‘Hobo Syndrome.’ Journal of Management, 21, 211–229. Kammeyer-Mueller, J., Steel, P. D. G., & Rubenstein, A. (2010). The other side of method bias: The perils of distinct source research designs. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 294–321. Kanfer, R., Chen, G., & Pritchard, R. D. (2008). The three C’s of work motivation: Context, content, and change. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.), Work motivation: Past, present, and future (pp. 1–16). New York: Psychology Press. Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42, 771–768. Retaining the Productive Employee † 387

Komar, S., Brown, D. J., Komar, J. A., & Robie, C. (2008). Faking and the validity of conscientiousness: A Monte Carlo investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 140–154. Koslowsky, M., Sagie, A., Krausz, M., & Singer, A. D. (1997). Correlates of employee lateness: Some theoretical considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 79–88. Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 768–821. Le, H., Oh, I.-S., Robbins, S. B., Ilies, R., Holland, E., & Westrick, P. (2011). Too much of a good thing: Curvilinear relationships between personality traits and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 113–133. Levin, I., & Stokes, J. P. (1989). Disposition approach to job satisfaction: Role of negative affectivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 752–758. Li, N., Liang, J., & Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: A relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 395–404. Lievens, F., Chasteen, C., Day, E. A., & Christiansen, N. (2006). Large-scale investigation of the role of trait activation theory for understanding assessment center conver- gent and discriminant validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 247–258. Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 288–299. Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 5–19). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley. Marinova, S. V., Moon, H., & Kamdar, D. (2013). Getting ahead or getting along? The two-facet conceptualization of conscientiousness and leadership emergence. Organization Science, 24, 1257–1276. Martocchio, J. J., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Relationship between conscientiousness and learning in employee training: Mediating inﬂuences of self-deception and self- efﬁcacy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 764–773. McAdams, D. P. (1995). What do we know when we know a person? Journal of Personality, 63, 365–396. McAdams, D. P., & Emmons, R. (Eds.). (1995). Levels and domains in personality (Special issue). Journal of Personality, 63(3). McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The stability of personality: Observations and evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3, 173–175. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. McCrae, R. R., Yamagata, S., Jang, K. L., Riemann, R., Ando, J., Ono, Y., ..., Spinath, F. M. (2008). Substance and artifact in the higher-order factors of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(2), 442–455. Mershon, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1988). Number of factors in the personality sphere: Does increase in factors increase predictability of real-life criteria? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 675–680. 388 † The Academy of Management Annals

Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Bonaccio, S. (2009). A meta-analytic investigation into the moderating effects of situational strength on the conscientiousness–performance relationship. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 1077–1102. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121–140. Miner, A. G., & Glomb, T. M. (2010). State mood, task performance, and behavior at work: A within-persons approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112(1), 43–57. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York: Wiley. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102(2), 246–268. Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Observations and commentary on recent research in work motivation. In L. Porter, G. Bigley, & R. Steers (Eds.), Motivation and Work Behavior (7th ed., pp. 225–254) New York: McGraw Hill. Mitra, A., Jenkins, G., & Gupta, N. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the relationship between absence and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 879–889. Mobley, W. H., Griffeth, R. W., Hand, H. H., & Meglino, B. M. (1979). Review and conceptual analysis of the employee turnover process. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 493–522. Morgeson, F. P., Campion, M. A., Dipboye, R. L., Hollenbeck, J. R., Murphy, K., & Schmitt, N. (2007). Reconsidering the use of personality tests in personnel selection contexts. Personnel Psychology, 60, 683–729. Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). Taking charge at work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplace change. Academy of Management Journal, 42, 403–419. Motowidlo, S. J. (2003). Job performance. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 39–53). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The Big Five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153–200. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., Scullen, S. M., & Rounds, J. (2005). Higher-order dimensions of the big ﬁve personality traits and the big six vocational interest types. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 447–478. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2–3), 145–165. Murphy, K. R., & DeShon, R. (2000). Interrater correlations do not estimate the reliability of job performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 53, 873–900. Nagle, B. F. (1953). Criterion development. Personnel Psychology, 6, 271–289. Nettle, D. (2006). The evolution of personality variation in humans and other animals. American Psychologist, 61, 622–631. Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58, 367–408. Nisbett, R. E. (1980). The trait construct in lay and professional psychology. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections on social psychology (pp. 109–130). New York: Oxford University Press. Retaining the Productive Employee † 389

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Oh, I.-S., & Berry, C. M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1498–1513. Oh, I. S., Wang, G., & Mount, M. K. (2011). Validity of observer ratings of the five-factor model of personality traits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 762–773. Ones, D. S., Dilchert, S., Viswesvaran, C., & Judge, T. A. (2007). In support of personality assessment in organizational settings. Personnel Psychology, 60, 995–1027. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609–626. Ones, D., Viswesvaran, C., & Reiss, A. (1996). Role of social desirability in personality testing for personnel selection: The red herring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 660–679. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2010). Expanding the criterion domain to include organizational citizenship behavior: Implications for employee selection. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 281–323). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775– 802. Oswald, F. L., & Hough, L. M. (2011). Personality and its assessment in organizations: Theoretical and empirical developments. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2. Selecting and developing members for the organization (pp. 153–184). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421. Parker, S. K., & Collins, C. G. (2010). Taking stock: Integrating and differentiating multiple proactive behaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–662. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big Five factors and facets and the prediction of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 524–539. Payne, S., Youngcourt, S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(92), 128–150. Podsakoff, N. P., Whiting, S. W., Podsakoff, P. M., & Blume, B. D. (2009). Individual- and organizational-level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 122–141. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management, 26, 513–563. Preacher, K., Rucker, D., & Hayes, A. (2007). Assessing moderated mediation hypoth- eses: Strategies, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 185–227. 390 † The Academy of Management Annals

Roberts, B. W. (2006). Personality development and organizational behavior. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 1–40. Roberts, B. W., & Del Vecchio, W. F. (2000). The rank-order consistency of personality traits from childhood to old age: A quantitative review of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 3–25. Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. Roberts, B. W., & Robins, R. W. (2000). Broad dispositions, broad aspirations: The intersection of personality traits and major life goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1284–1296. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555– 572. Rotundo, M., & Sackett, P. R. (2002). The relative importance of task, citizenship, and counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: A policy- capturing approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 66–80. Sackett, P. R. (2002). The structure of counterproductive work behaviors: Dimensionality and relationships with facets of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10, 5–11. Sackett, P. R., & DeVore, C. J. (2001). Counterproductive behaviors at work. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology (pp. 145–164). London: Sage. Sackett, P. R., & Lievens, F. (2008). Personnel selection. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 419–450. Salgado, J. F. (1997). The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(1), 30–43. Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. Schmidt, F. L., & Kaplan, L. B. (1971). Composite vs. multiple criteria: A review and res- olution of the controversy. Personnel Psychology, 24, 419–434. Schneider, R. J., Hough, L. M., & Dunnette, M. D. (1996). Broadsided by broad traits: How to sink science in five dimensions or less. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 639–655. Shaffer, J. A., & Postlethwaite, B. E. (2012). A matter of context: A meta-analytic investigation of the relative validity of contextualized and noncontextualized personality measures. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 445–494. Smillie, L., Yeo, G., & Furnham, A., & Jackson, C. J. (2006). Benefits of all work and no play: The relationship between neuroticism and performance as a function of resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 139–155. Steers, R. M., & Mowday, R. T. (1981). Employee turnover and post-decision accommo- dation process. In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organization behavior (pp. 235–281). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Retaining the Productive Employee † 391

Stewart, G. L. (1996). Reward structure as a moderator of the relationship between extraversion and sales performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6), 619–627. Swider, B. W., & Zimmerman, R. D. (2010). Born to burnout: A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout, and work outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 76, 487–506. Terracciano, A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2006). Personality plasticity after age 30. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 999–1009. Tett, R., & Burnett, D. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517. Thomas, J. P., Whitman, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (2010). Employee proactivity in organizations: A comparative meta-analysis of emergent proactive constructs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 275–300. Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S. A., Barsky, A. P., Warren, C. R., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129(6), 914–945. Tornau, K., & Frese, M. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta- analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 62, 44–96. Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L. L., & McLean Parks, J. M. (1995). Extra-role behaviors: In pursuit of construct and definitional clarity (a bridge over muddied waters). Research in Organizational Behavior, 17, 215–285. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119. Viswesvaran, C. (1993). Modeling job performance: Is there a general factor? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (1995). Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta- analysis and structural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48, 865–885. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Perspectives on models of job performance. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 6, 216–226. Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Job performance: Assessment issues in personnel selection. In A. Evers, N. Anderson, & O. Voskuijl (Eds.), Handbook of personnel selection (pp. 354–375). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2002). The moderating influence of job performance dimensions on convergence of supervisory and peer ratings of job performance: Unconfounding construct-level convergence and rating difficulty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 345–354. Viswesvaran, C., Schmidt, F. L., & Ones, D. S. (2005). Is there a general factor in ratings of job performance? A meta-analytic framework for disentangling substantive and error influences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 108–131. Wallace, C., & Chen, G. (2006). A multi-level integration of personality, climate, self- regulation, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 59(3), 529–557. Weiss, H. M., Nicholas, J. P., & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 78, 1–24. Widiger, T. A. (2009). Neuroticism. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 129–146). New York: The Guilford Press. 392 † The Academy of Management Annals

Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and measurement of interpersonal behavior. In D. Ciccetti & W. M. Grove (Eds.), Thinking clearly about psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl, Vol. 1: Matters of public interest; Vol. 2: Personality and psychopathology (pp. 89–113). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Wiggins, J. S., & Trapnell, P. D. (1996). A dyadic interactional perspective on the ﬁve- factor model. In J. S. Wiggins (Ed.), The ﬁve factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 88–162). New York: Guilford Press. Wood, D., & Roberts, B. W. (2006). Cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of the Personality and Role Identity Structural Model (PRISM). Journal of Personality, 74, 779–810. Zimmerman, R. D. (2008). Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’ turnover decisions: A meta-analytic path model. Personnel Psychology, 61, 309–348. Zimmerman, R. D., Boswell, W. R., Shipp, A. J., Dunford, B. B., & Boudreau, J. W. (2012). Explaining the pathways between approach-avoidance personality traits and employees’ job search behavior. Journal of Management, 38, 1450–1475. Zimmerman, R. D., Triana, M. C., & Barrick, M. R. (2010). Predictive criterion-related validity of observer-ratings of personality and job-related competencies using multiple raters and multiple performance criteria. Human Performance, 23, 361–378. Appendix 1 Meta-Analytic Correlations between the FFM and Job-Related Behaviora

123 45678910 1. Conscientiousness k N 2. Emotional stability .26b k 26 N 5380 3. Agreeableness .27b .25b k 344 18 N 162,975 3690 4. Extraversion .00b .19b .17b eann h rdcieEmployee Productive the Retaining k 632 60 243 N 683,001 10,926 135,529 5. Openness 2.06b .16b .11b .17b k 338 21 236 418 N 356,680 4870 144,205 135,529 6. Task performance .23c .12c .10c .12c .05c k 239 224 206 222 143 N 48,100 38,817 36,210 39,432 23,225 7. Contextual performance .20d .14d .19d .06d .20d .54e k 24 12 17 11 9 23 N 5186 2606 5103 2573 1680 6983 8. Proactive performance .10d .08d 2.03d .13d .14d .35f .57d

k 17 7 8 6 19 28 27 †

N 2629 1732 1396 1144 3761 7430 5186 393 394

Appendix 1 (Continued) †

123 45678910 Annals Management of Academy The 9. CWB 2.30h 2.23h 2.33h 2.03h 2.06h 2.45i 2.32j 2.23i k 878 5516 49 15 N 2934 2309 2934 1836 1804 3916 16,721 8835 10. Absenteeism 2.16i 2.11i 2.06i .08i 2.04i 2.29k 2.16f .02i .39i k 13 10 9 10 9 49 15 35 N 1582 1326 1076 1326 1076 15,764 4037 658 5385 11. Turnover 2.22l 2.20l 2.27l 2.04l .10l 2.17m 2.14f 2.08i .27n .33o k 17 19 15 18 16 72 12 2 633 N 1631 1824 1532 1608 1563 25,234 3917 7689 4208 5316 aIf more than one meta-analysis reported on the same relationship, we used the estimate reﬂecting the largest observations. Harmonic mean N ¼ 3047. Superscripts in the table indicate meta-analytic sources for correlations. bOnes et al. (1996). cBarrick et al. (2001). dChiaburu et al. (2011). ePodsakoff et al. (2009). fThomas et al. (2010) hBerry et al. (2007). iOriginal analyses (in bold), performed for this study, can be found in Appendix 2. jDalal (2005). kBycio (1992). lZimmerman (2008). mGriffeth et al. (2000). nKoslowsky et al. (1997). oMitra et al. (1992). Appendix 2 Results of New Meta-Analyses for Absenteeism, Counterproductive Work Behavior, and Proactive Performance

kN rc SDr r SDr %Var CVLL CVUL CILL CIUL Absenteeism Conscientiousness 13 1582 2.13 .11 2.16 .08 66 2.27 2.06 2.24 2.09 Agreeableness 9 1076 2.05 .08 2.06 .00 100 2.06 2.06 2.12 .00 Emotional Stability 10 1326 2.09 .08 2.11 .00 100 2.11 2.11 2.17 2.05 Extraversion 10 1326 .07 .13 .08 .11 47 2.06 .23 2.02 .18 Openness 9 1076 2.03 .08 2.04 .00 100 2.04 2.04 2.10 .02 eann h rdcieEmployee Productive the Retaining CWB Task performance 16 3916 2.38 .17 2.45 .18 11 2.68 2.21 2.55 2.35 Proactive performance 15 8835 2.18 .15 2.23 .18 7 2.46 .00 2.33 2.13 Absenteeism 5 5385 .31 .15 .39 .19 4 .16 .63 .23 .56 Proactive performance Turnover 2 7689 2.07 .01 2.08 .00 100 2.08 2.08 2.09 2.06 Absenteeism 3 658 .02 .06 .02 .00 100 .02 .02 2.07 .11

Notes: k, number of statistically independent samples; N, total sample size; rc, sample-size-weighted mean correlation; SDr, sample-size-weighted observed standard deviation of correlations; r, mean true-score correlation corrected for unreliability and range restriction; SDr, standard deviation of corrected correlations; %Var, percentage of variance attributable to statistical artifacts; CVLL and CVUL , lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 80% credibility interval; CILL and CIUL , lower and upper bounds, respectively, of the 95% conﬁdence interval around the corrected mean correlation. † 395 Copyright of Academy of Management Annals is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.